The Latest from Iran (5 October): The Difficulty of Signals

UPDATED Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with “Friendship Principles”
Video: Sharif Uni Protest Against Javad Larijani (4 October)
The Latest from Iran (4 October): Waiting for Developments

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2030 GMT. Harrumph, harrumph. The Financial Times, which is vying with The Times of London to be the at-hand Government channel for "news", uses several hundred words as a backdrop for this fist-shaking from "a senior British government official":

It is important that IAEA inspectors are given access to Qom immediately. We regret that Iran is delaying this until October 25. We see no reason for a delay. What possible reason can there be for it?

Given that the IAEA and even most of the Obama Administration welcomed the agreement, one has to wonder whether this is the same "rogue" British official who gave the FT their recent non-story on "secret Iran nuclear arms plan", whether this is a concerted London effort to play "tough cop" alongside a more conciliatory US, or whether Gordon Brown's Government has decided it really doesn't want meaningful negotiations.

1945 GMT: We're not asleep. It's just a very slow night for news, and we're also suffering from a bit of fatigue after a heavy academic day.

However, I think you can look forward to some new analysis on Hashemi Rafsanjani by the morning. And we're trying valiantly to track down the video of last night's interview on CNN by Christiane Amanpour of Ray Takeyh, formerly of the National Security Council, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran.  (Coincidentally, I've worked with both on academic projects.)

1540 GMT: An EA correspondent hauls me up for being too quick (and optimistic) about the Green movement's web presence. Mir Hossein Mousavi's Kalemeh website has only returned (0510 GMT) in the sense that the original site, www.kalemeh.ir, redirects to a backup, www.kaleme.com, which has not updated since Qods Day.

1500 GMT: Tehran's Prosecutor General has denied the news, reported yesterday, that 20 prominent detainees are soon to be released. He asserted that the cases of the deatinees, including former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, reformist leaders Abdollah Momeni, Shahab Tabatabaei, and Saeed Shariati, and journalist Mohammad Atrianfar, would be handled within "the process of law".

1400 GMT: More Atomic Tourism. A helpful reader adds to our item (0620 GMT) on the Come Visit Us website for Fordo, the home of Iran's second enrichment facility: "You can also visit an observatory built 3 years ago. Location, location , location."

1350 GMT: Another Loosening of the Net? Following the report that Mousavi website Kalemeh could soon be back on-line (0510 GMT), the Etemade Melli newspaper, linked to Mehdi Karroubi, has been acquitted by a majority jury vote of complaints over its stories. This could pave the way for a resumption of the paper's publication, which was halted this summer.

1320 GMT: Mousavi Welcomed Into the Fold? Khabar Online adds to Pedestrian's excellent piece (see 0600 GMT) on the speech of judiciary official Javad Larijani at Sharif University, which called for an end to animosity against Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and welcomed Mousavi's "move inside the system".

1300 GMT: Academic Pressures. It's hard to put all together, but stories are piling up of punishment of university students and lecturers for political activity and even for challenges over academic matters. Students across Iran have been summoned to disciplinary offices, and Rooz Online writes of five law professors at Allameh Tabatabai University who have been barred from teaching.

1200 GMT: Still slow on the domestic front in Iran, so one more note on the media lemmings rushing after Sunday's New York Times mis-story on the Iran nuclear programme.

Unsurprisingly, The Times of London takes the prize for turning an already flawed report into a seven-alarm exaggeration: "Iran has the know-how to produce a nuclear bomb and may already have tested a detonation system small enough to fit into the warhead of a medium-range missile." The Times not only uses this as the pretext to reduce Sunday's press conference by IAEA head El Baradei to an afterthought but to give him a good kicking: "He will not be missed by foreign policy hawks in the US who accuse him of acquiescing in years of nuclear prevarication by Iran."

0935 GMT: All the Spin That's Fit to Print. This morning's New York Times on Iran did not repeat its Sunday spectacular of misinformation --- Iran Close to Bomb! --- going for the neutral (and factually correct) headline, "Iran Agrees to Allow Inspectors on Oct. 25".

But you can't get keep a good Government outlet down, so David Sanger (yep, him again) and Nazila Fathi, drop this into Paragraphs 5-6:

Some administration officials expressed private skepticism that Iran would ultimately prove willing to allow the kind of widespread inspections that the United States and its Western allies have in mind. They want the inspections to include several facilities that American and European officials suspect could be part of a string of covert facilities built to supply the newly revealed enrichment center near the holy city of Qum.

Sanger and Fathi fail to offer the corrective that no published US intelligence report puts forth evidence or even speculates that Iran has "a string of covert facilities". No leaked US report makes that claim. Not even the ISIS/IAEA report, which Sanger mangled on Sunday into an imminent warning that Iran had the information for The Bomb, alleges this.

I dread to think what's coming out tomorrow. Maybe it will be "Secret Government Installation for Mega-Giant Atomic Robots".

(P.S. No, it doesn't have to be this way. Simon Tisdall of The Guardian gets taken for a ride by the Sanger-Administration line, but The Associated Press, whose report runs in The Washington Post, gives the story a straightforward treatment with the El Baradei press conference and the public comments of President Obama's National Security Advisor, James Jones. They do not embellish --- and thus distort --- the story with the "on-background" spin of unnamed Administration and European officials.)

0800 GMT: Go Wide. Really Wide. Press TV, in its report on Sunday's press briefing by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offers an unsubtle signal of the Iran Government' strategy to move negotiations far beyond direct consideration of Tehran's nuclear programme to international and regional issues: "The UN nuclear watchdog Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, says regional and global stability can only be achieved through total nuclear disarmament."

There is no reference at all in the story to the talks over Iran's uranium enrichment.

0620 GMT: Atomic Tourism. Fancy a different kind of vacation?

The Iranian village of Fordoo, the location of the second enrichment facility, has a website full of information for the wanna-be visitor. It has the latest news --- a reassurance from Press TV that no radioactive material has been moved into the no-longer-secret enrichment plant --- a biography of the village, and an inspirational quote: "The best way to predict the future is making it."

0600 GMT: Yesterday we posted the video of student protests at Sharif University of the speech by high-level Judiciary official Mohammad Javad Larijani. Pedestrian has a fascinating account of the occasion. It includes Larijani's attempts to "bond" with the kids, “I was once a student, I was once a part of your gang. I was part of the same chaos," before dropping the boom on the opposition movement:

I agree with [the] statement [of protesting students that "the coup d'etat government must resign"] very much. But that coup d’état was defeated and the leader of the coup d’état was [Mir Hossein] Mousavi.

There were individuals who were part of the system and participated in the election, but on June 12th, at 11p.m. they turned their backs on the system. Their actions constitute a coup d’état . They took a very harsh tone against the government, accused it of murder, theft, lying, etc. and they used the vocabulary of thugs.

Yet by far the most intriguing passage was Larijani's response to protesting pro-Ahmadinejad students, “We must free our hearts of hate towards Mousavi, [Mehdi] Karroubi.….Because with hate, we can not tell truth from lies.” He added that Mousavi had now "said that he plans to move inside the system and right the wrongs. I think this is a step in the right direction.”

0545 GMT: Another interesting but lower-profile move this weekend. Hossein Taeb, the commander of the Basiji commander, was named a Deputy Director at the Ministry of Intelligence. While some sharper-eyed Iran-watchers noted the development, they did not consider this: given the battle this summer between President Ahmadinejad and other politicians and clerics (including the Supreme Leader?) for control of the Ministry, with the firing of more than 20 high-level officials, who claims a victory with Taeb's appointment?

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi has been appointed as the new commander of the Basiji.

0510 GMT: The most intriguing development inside Iran yesterday was the statement by Hashemi Rafsanjani (see our analysis) setting out guidelines for political activity and also putting specific warnings, such as a "mysterious network" trying to undermine the Islamic Republic and the false or misleading information put out through various outlets.

Decoding Rafsanjani's elaborately framed words, the easy part is that he is telling the Iranian people: in these tense and confusing times, Trust Me. And the Supreme Leader. The one reliable source for the latest on political development are statements from the Expediency Council, which Rafsanjani heads. The one trustworthy politician, by unsubtle implication, is the former President.

But who is Rafsanjani putting off-limits with his reference to a mysterious network? Some might say the reformists, who have gone too far to unsettle the system that Rafsanjani says he will defend through a return to "unity". Others are arguing, persuasively, that the threat comes from elements within the regime, and they have support from the pointed clue about disinformation --- given that the first "National Unity Plan" came out through Fars News Agency, fed to it by person or persons unknown, the former President's most direct challengers probably hold high office somewhere inside the establishment.

Of course, Rafsanjani could be putting both sides on notice with his warnings, even as he elevates himself with his First Amongst Equals relationship with the Supreme Leader. That still leaves the biggest question, as we noted yesterday: what exactly is the plan that he favours?

Meanwhile, the Green movement has been boosted by the return of Kalemeh, the site of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign. It had been off-line for several days after the Government's crackdown on the  opposition before Qods Day.

Comments

[mahasti]

Make certain we know what is really going on in Iran they are masters of deceit.

[Scott Lucas]

Mahasti,

I take nothing as certain. Have just updated the analysis on Rafsanjani and still working out what his strategy is --- who it's with, who it's against, what it's for....

S.

[whereismyvote]

My interpretation of the report from Rafsanjani, his comments to proclaim his friendship with the leader etc. was that he was targeting IRG with his comments, and namely the AN supporters in the Guards.

[Amy]

0800 GMT
“We must free our hearts of hate towards Mousavi, [Mehdi] Karroubi."
...manipulative asshat

(edit-- sorry, I usually don't usually resort to calling people names)

[Amy]

re: 1200 GMT
The "unnamed" admin sources don't speak for the Obama admin. I'm reasonably sure "they" is Dennis Ross, possibly in concert with some of his neocon underlings to create a plural "they". Unlike Bush, President Obama appoints many advisers who don't agree with him. In the last 3 weeks we have been seeing the down side of that tendency in efforts to undermine and redirect the President's agenda. Going unnamed does double-duty here. "They" have no accountability for their statements AND they can presume to speak for the administration.

Of course there's an alternate explanation. The stories could be a way to raise the question of whether the admin is only pretending to be "nice" when the true intent is more like the Bush era tactic of making demands which the other party is likely to reject and then declaring that the requirements weren't met when they were, in order to justify what was planned all along. Maybe the admin wants to raise the questions about Obama's actual designs in order to give further incentive to meet IAEA requirements. I doubt it though... Not Obama's style...

[Amy]

Clarification:
I mangled my analogy above in #5 comment. The Bush era policy I described in the 2nd paragraph certainly would give no incentive to meet IAEA requirements. It was supposed to be an example of insincere negotiation tactics. What I was trying to say was that a possible explanation for the statements of the unnamed is to hint that the admin's strategy is more cynical than it looks. In reality there probably are many layers of tactics, but at heart I think President Obama genuinely wants engagement. He's not creating a pretext for military action, but there are advisers with their own agendas.

CORRECTION:
Yikes! Both of these 2 comments refer to the 0935 GMT post, not 1200

Either way, the NYT isn't a government mouthpiece. It's the voice of the unnamed sources (which, in the past, made it a good outlet for the Bush admin)

[Bijan]

Scott et al,

As someone who grew up in the states, specifically in the South and even more specifically in a small town in the south, I have always been concerned about the "misinformation" that is spread about Iran and the Middle East in general. I grew up with and still know (as many of us do) those with very skewed views of those from the Middle East. It took me taking my fiance on a trip to where I grew up for her to see the "realities" outside of a major metropolitan area in regards to the pure prejudices that exist in many parts of the US.

As I continue to read the news daily, I can't help but notice the trend in the media here in the US and even in the UK that has moved back towards one of misinformation and manipulation of facts.

After the first wave of protests, I had people asking me questions daily about the situation in Iran from coworkers, to friends and even to strangers who overhead a conversation I had. People here in the US were interested in what was going on and had a concern for the fate of the Iranians who the were seeing images of on TV. This interest level, again in my personal experience, has dropped drastically as the media has dropped the stories over the plight of the Iranian people to more fear creating articles on how Iran is about to create a bomb. The fact is, at least in my circle, most get their news from major news outlets and this is what is the basis of their perception of the current situation.

Forgive my rambling but it leads to me to again thank the EA team for their dedication to avoiding the trap so many in the media have fallen back into and also the bloggers out there who are doing their best to reach more and more people so they can be informed. I think it behooves all of us, especially those like me who have an "American audience" in this case, to share our knowledge to let them know what the reality is so they can be informed and through their own means, help to create an environment of respect and perhaps take action to prevent a catastrophe in our policies with Iran.

Again, my apologies for the long winded discussion.

[Amy]

Scott,
I'm grumpy & over-caffeinated-- take what I'm about to say in the spirit of differing opinions, not as criticism. I take exception with your characterization of how President Obama is handling relations with Iran, which you have portrayed as bumbling, naïve, ill-equipped, outstripped, ham-handed and short-sighted.

I believe President Obama is playing a long game. The nuke thing is a tactical knot to untangle in order to proceed with his long-range strategy to develop a working relationship with Iran. Before the election, as a candidate, he took the mandatory hard line on the nukes, but he went on to say that he believed our 2 countries could work together on areas such as regional security.

Why do I believe it wasn't just kumbaya rhetoric? Because President Obama is a pragmatist with a great deal to gain in the long run. Three critical areas of foreign policy are Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East peace process. Our 2 governments working together in these areas would facilitate and advance Obama's foreign policy agenda. It's his modus operandi— ex, health care reform is important in its own right, but is strategically critical as the linchpin of deficit reduction.

There are mistakes enough, but like I said yesterday (http://enduringamerica.com/2009/10/04/the-latest-from-iran-4-october-waiting-for-developments/" rel="nofollow">comment 5), some of what looks bad is part of the longer game. I'm not an Obama apologist. I am concerned about or disagree with the course he has taken in several policy areas such as Afghanistan, investigation of torture & financial reform. But in the current negotiations with Iran, I think he's headed in the right direction. Granted it may or may not pan out, but I think that, in some respects, you have been selling him short.

On the other hand, you are forcing me to think through why I think this thing is a good idea on an almost daily basis, which leads to these rambling diatribes cluttering up the threads. Think twice before you say more, my friend.

Oh, and Bijan is spot on ;)

[Peter]

@Amy

I'm in complete agreement with your assessment regarding Obama's playing a long game with regard to Iran.

[Scott Lucas]

Amy,

My doubts about "Obama" on Iran are part of a wider struggle I've been having since the Inauguration (see the post I put up on 21 January, "A Gut Reaction" to the Inaugural. I admire him for much in his beliefs and his intentions, and I think his general ideas on the approach to US foreign policy (with the possible exception of Af-Pak) are good.

The problem is that "Obama" is far bigger than Obama. It's a sprawling Government bureaucracy, portions of which have been heavily committed to these incarnations of the "War on Terror" that the appalling Bush Administration pursued, screwed up in numerous ways, and then handed to its successor. A Government containing individuals (Amy's friend D. Ross is an example) who are pursuing their personal conceptions of how to remake the world in an American-first image. So the President has a myriad of other agencies and officials pressing and often scheming for their agendas on issues from Gitmo to Afghanistan (and still, to an extent, Iraq) to the Middle East. It's a huge task for any (Super-)man to overcome all those machinations.

Personally, however, I wish Obama would just draw a line on issues to cut out the back-stabbing and manoeuvring against him. On Afghanistan, that would mean, No More Troops. Not a one, despite McChrystal's (and, behind him, Petraeus's) attempts to push the President into a corner. And on Iran it would mean We Talk. No deadlines, no hyperbolic Bomb scenarios laid out for the press, no grandstanding such as the press conference in New York.

Iran also offers one feature that, had you asked me in January, I could never have expected. I think the most negative effect of the Geneva talks has nothing to do with a nuclear programme. It lies in the legitimacy that it bestows on Ahmadinejad. I wish someone in the Obama Administration could have stepped back from all the foreign-policy scenarios and thought, maybe, we should stand still and let those in Iran have the priority and the initiative. I know that's a big ask for a system and, yes, even a well-meaning, intelligent President in the mind-set of state-on-state engagement, but it would have been a "vision" approach that points to new, productive ways of thinking.

S.

[Thomas]

Scott,

I have to disagree about US-Iran talks giving Ahmadinejad legitmacy. The US is dealing with the Supreme Leader, the Presidency of Iran is the second tier executive office. Though US Govt should explicity state this when an oppurtunity comes up in the future.

[ChrisE]

Ray Takeyh has not, as far as I'm aware, ever worked in the NSC. He was brought in as a special advisor by Ross when at the State Department. When Ross was brought into the NSC, Takeyh went back to the CFR.

Whilst I'm obviously no fan of Ross' record at WINEAP, the fact that he hand picked Takeyh, who stood against every tenet of Bush's Iran policy, suggests that the existence of Ross in Obama's Iran policy is not clear cut evidence of continuity between Bush and Obama. Not that I think you were implying this.

I think Obama got it tactically wrong in the last week or two. But the posturing was not grandstanding simply for a domestic audience; it was an attempt to gain leverage and prevent Iranian procrastination. It was a clumsy effort to support engagement.

I share your view that it probably helped AN domestically (though i think this has been perhaps overstated). But I think this notion of giving AN legitimacy, as it applies to western interests, requires greater interrogation. Many will suggest, perhaps brutally, that the west needs to put its interests above that of AN's legitimacy.

If, however, we can make a case that not undermining the domestic pressure on AN is in the west's interests then we are again aligning our interests with AN's opponents. That case is possible to make, and it's my instinctive position, but I just have not seen that case rigerously developed. We need to identify how AN's weakening and his opponents, who are not saying much about foreign policy matters, can encourage engagement.

(going into Devil's advocate mode)

If we are making the case that a lame duck and increasingly distracted and frustrated AN is going to help "those in Iran have the priority and the initiative", then lets develop the foreing policy implications of an ongoing power struggle in Iran. How long a game should the west be prepared to play? Within this we need to understand how the SL's attitude to engagement is affected by the ongoing crisis with his president. A corrollary of this remains the extent to which AN shapes Iran's engagement strategy or negotiations on the nuclear issue.

The Obama probably made the call that AN would claim a victory from whatever action or inaction the west took. Especially the abadonment of all political pressure.

(coming out of devil's advocate)

Ultimately, an appreciation of internal political pressures has to go both ways.

We can ask Obama to have the political courage (of spartan proportions) to make the case that Iran's political crisis makes the application of pressure pointless. Equally, that engagement should be left an open ended invitation when issues of concern can be addressed with a greater chance of success- sometime in the non specified future.

This is a valid point that I broadly share.

However, I see no reason why we should not also be asking the Iranians to be equally conscious of the pressures within America's political system.

Iran will doubt for a long time that Obama's intentions are good. Doubtless some elements will also ponder whether even if his intentions are good, what threats engagement poses for the regime's long term integrity.

At some point, however, Iran needs to take the political risk and accept that Obama is not politically capable of letting the nuclear issue slide for ever (just as Iran is not capable of letting its political support for Hamas or Hezbollah slide). Rightly or wrongly, in terms of international law and the hypocracy of the intenational system, Iran has a lot to gain from getting a lot more open on its nuclear program.

Both sides need to learn how not to feed the hardliners.

There is nothing wrong with keeping Tehran focussed that engagement needs to be addressed soon. I just think the latest method was stupid and counter-productive.

[Megan]

@ Amy
I come to EA to read News about Iran and read views of readers on Iran domestic turmoil and its implications for the world community. I do not come to this site to read Obama MMM. If I want Obama MMM there are plenty of places I can go. And If I want to hear Obama Press, I listen to or read Gibbs.

I am sorry but I see you as an Obama apologist. In every one of your post you defend the indefensible. Your four comments on this thread are totally off-topic. Stop your Obama rant, please. It is nauseating.

I am sorry to disappoint you. I am not a Neocon. Heck, I am not even a republican. I am a tax payer, a voter and a citizen who cannot be fooled by used -car sales tactics. I often skip your comments because I know it does not add anything to the discussion on hand. But I could not be silent today when I noticed that you had issue with Scott’s Portrayal of Obama. I agree with Scott’s observation 100 percent so do a whole lot of other people in the U.S. and abroad.

LONGER GAME PLAN?? What the heck is that? Do you have the blue print? Never mind that, can you ask Obama to, at least, let his world partners in on this LONGER GAME PLAN for Iran? I do not think Sarkozy has seen this so-called LONGER GAME PLAN. I recall Sarkozy being on Obama MMM parade in 2008 and now he calls Obama naive, egotistic and incompetent. Other world leaders seem to be saying the same in private. Are they all Neocon? Are they all Republican? Is it possible that they all have seen him in action or should I say in his in-action?

For your information Iranian people are no longer hoodwinked either. They now have come to the conclusion that Obama like others before him will put the U.S .on the wrong side of history one more time when it comes to democratic movement in Iran. Iranian people now know the meaning of CHANGE and believe Cairo speech will be recorded in history as Obama spectacle and nothing more.

Campaign has ended. Bush eight -year disaster is also over (let’s be thankful for that). Obama won. It is time for Obama administration and his apologists to shut up and put out. No more empty words. No more used-car sales tactics. We are smart; if it is good we get it. Got it Amy?

[Megan]

@Bijian,

I appreciate your concerns. It is, however, encouraging to see that American people no longer paint Iranian people and Iranian government with the same brush. We owe this new perspective to those Iranians who lost their lives before our eyes and those who lost and continue to lose the small dose of liberty they had. And thanks to those young savvy Iranians who so valiantly tried to share with the world the images of their struggle.

I think we can do our part by flooding the Internet sphere with information and images as they happen on the ground in Iran. Another approach could be flooding our public officials with mail and e-mail with images and news from Iran as they happen. I have made, for example, arrangement with my Senator to send a weekly report of phone calls coming into a radio station. I get my energy listening to these calls coming from Iran unfiltered and uncensored. I only hope this broadcasting team that makes that possible to be able to keep it up. I understand they have funding issues.

[Amy]

LOL-- got it Megan, although I've been under the assumption that people are perfectly welcome to skip/ignore everything I say.

Forgive me for being such a pain in the butt. Believe it or not, I'm actually close to the end of this particular chain of thought. I guess I've been sorting out something and the pieces finally started falling together after reading Scott's response above.

It's not presumptuous of anybody here to disagree with Scott. He can handle it with one hand tied behind his back. I learn a lot when he explains the basis for his thoughts and analyses.

I guess you could say I'm an Obama apologist when it comes to Iran— so far, at least. If the topic was Afghanistan or financial reform, you'd see a different kind of comment,

Really what I'm an apologist for is doing things in a different way. You may or may not agree, but I think that even with the current regime, we can take steps toward regional stability that will make the situation better for the new government.

I've been reacting to comments Scott has made about whether it the Obama approach is different, whether it is effective, whether it is naïve, wrong-headed, whatever else I said above, It comes up every day— not exactly off-topic.

It's not so much about Obama as about changing how America relates to the rest of the world & how to make it happen given the constraints of where we are starting from.

BTW, I've never met a neocon. I think they are mostly holed up in think tanks, but they crawl out of the woodwork whenever there's a chance to apply a military solution to a foreign policy problem. They are relevant here because of their daily editorials in the WSJ, WaPo & NYT are part of the effort to engineer such a response in Iran.

[arash]

I don`t see a room for reconcilement between Hashemi and the Guards, they`ve gone to the mattresses. The Guards have to many enemies,(Hashemi, Marjas, green movement, principlist, the people) they`re ego is writing checks their body can`t cash. They overestimated their own power. As for Us /Iran relations; I think the AN government is just flirting with IAEA and the US, giving signals of cooperation and just when they`re about to go to bed, AN will pull out. AN will try to use the nuclear issue to squash the domestic problems. The harder the rhetoric from US the better for AN.

[Amy]

ChrisE
Ross is an enigma.
In http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02Iran-t.html" rel="nofollow">this article, Roger Cohen makes him sound more realpolitik. But http://www.newsweek.com/id/171256" rel="nofollow">hereRoss sounded like his usual self last November.

The (Aug 2009) Cohen article gives an idea of how Ross's presence could facilitate engagement:

In Tehran, just before the election, I sat down with Nasser Hadian, who once taught at Columbia and is now at Tehran University. He’s an influential thinker on foreign affairs who got to know Ross while he was in the United States. Hadian told me that Iran has taken Obama’s outreach seriously. Hadian has been part of a group of foreign-policy experts, convened by Mahmoud Vaezi at the Center for Strategic Research in Tehran, who have been meeting every two weeks to review how to respond to the U.S. offer. Vaezi prepares reports that are submitted to Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the reformist former president who has been bitterly critical of the June 12 vote, and to Khamenei himself.

Hadian suggested this role for Ross:

I’ve argued that Ross would be an important assurance, someone able to convince the American Jewish lobby that any eventual agreement is workable.” That view, he suggested, had gained some traction in Tehran.

On the other hand, it's not unlikely that he's one of the NYT "unnamed sources" trying to redirect the outcome of the talks from behind the scenes

On the other hand, as Scott suggested, might those comments in part be directed at a pro-Israel audience? In that case, is the effect reassuring or detrimental?

It's all so Byzantine...

[Scott Lucas]

ChrisE,

My mistake re Takeyh: he was in State Department. The story is that his move to NSC with Ross was blocked by someone inside the Administration.

S.

[Scott Lucas]

Thomas,

I appreciate the point. I think I'm reading this also in terms of a negotiation between Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader in which the President is trying to establish a key, if not primary position, as the authority in Iran.

S.

[Scott Lucas]

Amy,

I would buy this "lightning rod" role for Ross, deflecting the criticisms of those opposed to engagement, were it not for the evidence of inter-Administration battles, often through leaks to the media.

S.

[Scott Lucas]

ChrisE,

To be blunt: If I Ruled the World, I wouldn't have set up the October talks in Geneva. There's no imminent threat from an Iranian military nuclear programme. So let Ahmadinejad dangle internationally while the internal dynamics develop. I think this was Trita Parsi's initial line, though he may have shifted later in the summer.

S.

[MD]

Scott Lucas @Amy at 21:25,

You out did yourself with this post . In a perfect world, dear Scott, you would
be Obama's advisor ;-)

[ChrisE]

Scott,

I don't think there is an imminent threat either. I doubt Obama does either- as he sat on the Qom revelation for 9 months. The point was that the Iran crisis had disrupted Obama's engagement strategy and they tried to inject some urgency by increasing the stakes for a 'grand bargain'. It was a misplay but the basic fact that Iran needs to be aware that Obama took a political risk with engagement, and that it is under domestic pressure, remains. As I said, we need a mutual appreciation of domestic political parameters.

I also think that 'while the internal dynamics develop' is a slightly vague statement- so vague as being a tough political sell. I agreed with Parsi's line that Iran was incapable of delevering now, but I'd like to see a greater eleboration of how a lame duck AN regime affects engagement. If we view the current crisis in Iran as far from over, and possibly defining the 2nd AN administration, at some point we will have to negotiate with a stil unsettled Iranian political system.

[Scott Lucas]

MD,

You are far too kind. Trust me, I rely on others' advice just to make sure I'm in the right place at the right time....

S.

[Scott Lucas]

ChrisE,

In some respects, Iran's foreign policy is in a state of suspension while the internal battle plays out --- without clear authority inside the country, Ahmadinejad struggles to project Iran abroad. (Note Marandi's sustained insistence in the CNN transcript, posted today, that the international community and especially the US recognise Government's unchallenged authority.) That's why the UN trip was so important and why these talks take on a different dimension.

I think the system being "unsettled" argues against immediate talks, at least at high political levels (as opposed to technical discussions), rather than for them.

S.